Blockchain size (another thread, yes)

[GODLIKE]

Yes I know this has been "discussed" a thousand times already, but still... the blockchain is growing by around 1GB per month.
This is probably (and hopefully) going to grow exponentially as the number of transactions is quite directly connected with the number of users.
I don't even want to think when Bitcoin will enter Wall Street...

But many people immediately give up with Bitcoin though, when they see their Wallet client is taking ages to sync, but also hard disk space consumption is becoming annoyingly heavy.
This puts Bitcoin on track for investors etc, but puts off track common people that would like to enter the currency.

So, if this has been discussed a thousand times, what where the "conclusions", and if the case, why no solution has been taken yet?

I am using Electrum at the moment and find it very comfortable.
The problem of course is security.
I also can't understand how I can trust the developers of it, how can I know they don't know my passwords and security passphrase, but at the moment, seeing my funds are very low, it's ok.

[Cryptopher]

I haven't used a Bitcoin wallet on my machine in a long time, in fact, I never did actually use a Bitcoin wallet on my machine to hold any bitcoins.

I use an online wallet for the convenience and security features that they provide. There is always the risk that your information may be intercepted, but that's why many people opt to store a small proportion of their bitcoins on convenient wallets for day-to-day transactions, while storing the rest in cold stooge, while checking something like Blockchain.info for observing transactions.

Don't think that I would bother to sync a Bitcoin wallet on my laptop now.

[shorena]

I dont see an exponential growth here.
https://blockchain.info/en/charts/blocks-size?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=1&address=

If people give up on bitcoin because the picked the wrong client... oh my. Whatcha gonna do about it? Its not like they are forced to use bitcoin core. Whats wrong with multibit or electrum? There are so many different wallets.

So, if this has been discussed a thousand times, what where the "conclusions", and if the case, why no solution has been taken yet?

I am using Electrum at the moment and find it very comfortable.
The problem of course is security.

This exactly is the solution.

Whats the problem with security ?

I also can't understand how I can trust the developers of it, how can I know they don't know my passwords and security passphrase, but at the moment, seeing my funds are very low, it's ok.

How can you trust the devs of bitcoin core? You cant unless you can read the code. Same with electrum. https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum

Same with every OpenSource tool you use. You either trust yourself to understand the code or you trust those that claim they understand the code.

[Lauda]

You don't need to download the wallet on your PC, there are other options.
Also you can torrent the blockchain and save time.
Godlike you are trying to spread FUD in a weird way.

[GODLIKE]

You don't need to download the wallet on your PC, there are other options.
Also you can torrent the blockchain and save time.
Godlike you are trying to spread FUD in a weird way.

I am not trying anything. I also don't know what is FUD.
Also, please read the post: I am using Electrum.

A NEW user that just wants to understand how Bitcoin works, will much probably use the Bitcoin Wallet because he believes it's the most up to date or secure or official or anything.
And what does he meet?
Hours and hours of download before he can make any operation.

[GODLIKE]

I dont see an exponential growth here.
https://blockchain.info/en/charts/blocks-size?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=1&address=

If people give up on bitcoin because the picked the wrong client... oh my. Whatcha gonna do about it? Its not like they are forced to use bitcoin core. Whats wrong with multibit or electrum? There are so many different wallets.

So, if this has been discussed a thousand times, what where the "conclusions", and if the case, why no solution has been taken yet?

I am using Electrum at the moment and find it very comfortable.
The problem of course is security.

This exactly is the solution.

Whats the problem with security ?

I also can't understand how I can trust the developers of it, how can I know they don't know my passwords and security passphrase, but at the moment, seeing my funds are very low, it's ok.

How can you trust the devs of bitcoin core? You cant unless you can read the code. Same with electrum. https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum

Same with every OpenSource tool you use. You either trust yourself to understand the code or you trust those that claim they understand the code.

One thing is the Bitcoin Core, another one is somebody developing an online wallet.
They put the code online, but how do I know that code is the same they use on their server?

About the exponential growth, this is what I wrote: "This is probably (and hopefully) going to grow exponentially as the number of transactions is quite directly connected with the number of users."

[franky1]

at current block limit of 1mb per block.. there is a max monthly growth of ~4.4gb, with a current block fill of 10%-25%.

as it has been discussed, its not a problem.

for instance Call of duty has a larger data size then bitcoin, with its updates, patches and new versions every 18 months. call of duty need to solve their problems of data bloat and download times.... way before blockchain does

yet i do not see millions of shoot-em-up users complaining.

same goes for world of warcraft. and many other games.

this is not the 1990's where hard drives are a 32gb max limit, where internet is 64k.. we are in the age of fibre optic cable and where something smaller then a postage stamp can store more then games/bitcoins needs.

data storage and internet speed evolution is the solution

[fryarminer]

For people who want to be a node it's a non-issue. It takes up less than .02% space on my hard drives. By the time it becomes a TB, hard drives will be astronimically large.

I wouldn't recommend trying to run Bitcoin Core on a tablet or something that size.

[ChuckStrawberry]

I don't think it will ever hit a Terabyte, but a light wallet is needed.

[Cicero2.0]

I run a full QT wallet node for security and to help the network. It uses only around 60 mb on my 1 tb hard drive. Storage options are always growing as well. A light version of QT would be helpful for beginners, but less nodes means less security doesn't it?

[shorena]

I run a full QT wallet node for security and to help the network. It uses only around 60 mb on my 1 tb hard drive. Storage options are always growing as well. A light version of QT would be helpful for beginners, but less nodes means less security doesn't it?

For security???

There are light wallets, why make another one?

I don't think it will ever hit a Terabyte, but a light wallet is needed.

Multibit? Electrum?

[Cicero2.0]

I run a full QT wallet node for security and to help the network. It uses only around 60 mb on my 1 tb hard drive. Storage options are always growing as well. A light version of QT would be helpful for beginners, but less nodes means less security doesn't it?

For security???

There are light wallets, why make another one?

I don't think it will ever hit a Terabyte, but a light wallet is needed.

People that are new to bit coin tend to want the "official wallet." I bought my first bitcoin two weeks ago and don't feel at all comfortable with the thought of using any other wallet. If there were a light version of the QT wallet it would make people like me more comfortable about using a light wallet.

[GODLIKE]

I run a full QT wallet node for security and to help the network. It uses only around 60 mb on my 1 tb hard drive. Storage options are always growing as well. A light version of QT would be helpful for beginners, but less nodes means less security doesn't it?

For security???

There are light wallets, why make another one?

I don't think it will ever hit a Terabyte, but a light wallet is needed.

Multibit? Electrum?

Plurality is also a factor of security.
Once a dev shuts down its wallet for whatever reason, what will you do?

[GODLIKE]

I run a full QT wallet node for security and to help the network. It uses only around 60 mb on my 1 tb hard drive. Storage options are always growing as well. A light version of QT would be helpful for beginners, but less nodes means less security doesn't it?

Less nodes probably means also slower confirmations of transactions.
But this shouldn't be a real problem, as the userbase widens, also full nodes will be more.
I would hold a node up as well if I didn't have this crappy connection.

But anyway, what I wanted to put the accent on, is that this file is becoming large and annoying.
I don't want to say that you can't deal with it, but the world is NOT USA, there are other countries.
With my connection, in that shit of country named Italy, I need more than two days to download the whole blockchain.
Space is not so much a problem FOR ME, as I have over 3 TB of hard disks, but many people have old computers, they are not geeks or nerds and are only interested in disconnecting themselves from banks and saving their money.
Not to mention people going around with tablets and smartphones. You can't ask them to fuck up all their memory with the blockchain.

What I want to pass on over here is that NEW USERS will get annoyed by this, and I think there's no doubt this file IS a bit heavy.
And I want to pass over that if Bitcoin will boom, like everyone of us hopes, the transactions number will grow exponentially.
Then what will you do if you go on 4GB per month growth of the blockchain size?
Better solve this problem now, I think.

[ArticMine]

This is not an issue simply because the falling cost and resource requirements for digital storage and bandwidth far out-paces the growth in the blockchain.

By the way I run a full node on the following 10 year+ old laptop running Trisquel (GNU/Linux)

CPU Pentium M 1.8 GHz
RAM 1 GB
Hard drive 128 GB
10/100 Ethernet (no wifi)
... and yes it even has a floppy drive and its original Windows 2000 logo!

The size of the .bitcoin folder in under 32GB.

So if my decade plus old laptop works to run a full node so will much newer technology provided of course it is not crippled by propriety software and DRM.

One could run a full node on many tablets and even high end smartphones but one would have a install a GNU/Linux OS on the device and in the process rid the device of DRM infections.

[franky1]

I run a full QT wallet node for security and to help the network. It uses only around 60 mb on my 1 tb hard drive. Storage options are always growing as well. A light version of QT would be helpful for beginners, but less nodes means less security doesn't it?

if your dont store the blockchain (20gb) then your not decentralising the ledger... your just a light wallet that relays unconfirmed transactions... you are giving limited help to security and the network.. not full help.... still better than nothing, which is what multibit offers, as that is just a transaction signer.. nothing more

[shorena]

-snip-
For security???

There are light wallets, why make another one?

I don't think it will ever hit a Terabyte, but a light wallet is needed.

People that are new to bit coin tend to want the "official wallet." I bought my first bitcoin two weeks ago and don't feel at all comfortable with the thought of using any other wallet. If there were a light version of the QT wallet it would make people like me more comfortable about using a light wallet.

#1 get your quotes in order, it looks like I said that -_-
#2 there is no official wallet
#3 you have assumptions that are wrong, that is not the fault of the bitcoin-core devs or the devs that develop a solution for your problem.

-snip-

Plurality is also a factor of security.
Once a dev shuts down its wallet for whatever reason, what will you do?

Whut?

MultiBit uses regular bitcoind machines to get it's block information from.
There isn't a central "multibit" server - it uses the Bitcoin network directly.

There is a multibit.org machine but that is just a webserver for downloading the installers, the multibit help and a config file to indicate when there are new versions available.

Nothing would happen.

Even if you used electrum (they actually have servers AFAIK) I can just export my private keys and import them somewhere else.

I run a full QT wallet node for security and to help the network. It uses only around 60 mb on my 1 tb hard drive. Storage options are always growing as well. A light version of QT would be helpful for beginners, but less nodes means less security doesn't it?

Less nodes probably means also slower confirmations of transactions.
But this shouldn't be a real problem, as the userbase widens, also full nodes will be more.
I would hold a node up as well if I didn't have this crappy connection.

Most nodes do not confirm transactions. They verifiy them. What you are think about are miners, they are technically also nodes, but thats besides the point. Usually when people say "node" they dont mean miners.

But anyway, what I wanted to put the accent on, is that this file is becoming large and annoying.
I don't want to say that you can't deal with it, but the world is NOT USA, there are other countries.

I am not from the USA. If your connection is crap, use a light client. That is what they are for.

With my connection, in that shit of country named Italy, I need more than two days to download the whole blockchain.

So? Dont download it. You can not contribute to the network anyway if your connection is shit. You just leech and contribute nothing. You are not helping the network you are leeching its resources.

Some of the devs talked about it years ago and to sum it up: if you have a crappy connection dont use bitcoin-core.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=124319.0

No, that wasn't my point.

If you have a path A -> B  -> C and B doesn't listen, then A could just connect directly to C (one socket used) and get the same results as if B connected to A and C (two sockets used).

Space is not so much a problem FOR ME, as I have over 3 TB of hard disks, but many people have old computers, they are not geeks or nerds and are only interested in disconnecting themselves from banks and saving their money.

So nice that there are people that made a solution for them.

Not to mention people going around with tablets and smartphones. You can't ask them to fuck up all their memory with the blockchain.

Did you ever install a bitcoin app? They are very small.

What I want to pass on over here is that NEW USERS will get annoyed by this, and I think there's no doubt this file IS a bit heavy.
And I want to pass over that if Bitcoin will boom, like everyone of us hopes, the transactions number will grow exponentially.
Then what will you do if you go on 4GB per month growth of the blockchain size?
Better solve this problem now, I think.

There is no problem.

Newbies will most likely visite this site very early
https://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-wallet
and if they read what is written there, they will make a pretty good decision even though they do not know the details behind it.

-snip-
What problem? There are multiple ways to use Bitcoin without holding a local copy of the block chain. The average user won't have a local copy and that is fine.

Exactly. There is no problem here. IMHO its just someone spreading FUD to make money http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-nodes-need/
"Get your full node here and support the network for only 9.99$" - Which is nice, which (if done right) will support the network. But there is no need for this.

[GODLIKE]

...gnagnagna I know everything you are ignorant gnagnagna...

Thank you for all the info, that's all good news, but even when you know everything about Bitcoin you shouldn't talk (write) like a presumptuous dick.

Anyway, the basic problem of giving people a good impression since the very first moment they enter Bitcoin, remains.

A NEW user that just wants to understand how Bitcoin works, will much probably use the Bitcoin Wallet because he believes it's the most up to date or secure or official or anything.
And what does he meet?
Hours and hours of download before he can make any operation.

As I wrote, most people aren't computer experts or geeks, they just want to escape from the bank system (the ones who understand its perversion).

For how I see it, a Bitcoin light client ready in the very same page where you can download the Bitcoin full client, probably on the model of Electrum, would be the best solution.
Then they'll have all the time to learn that there are other wallets, web wallets, etc. but as first impact I think this should be done.

[shorena]

...gnagnagna I know everything you are ignorant gnagnagna...

Thank you for all the info, that's all good news, but even when you know everything about Bitcoin you shouldn't talk (write) like a presumptuous dick.

No reason to get insulting.

Dont thank me if you dont mean it.

Yes I know this has been "discussed" a thousand times already, -snip-

[GODLIKE]

...gnagnagna I know everything you are ignorant gnagnagna...

Thank you for all the info, that's all good news, but even when you know everything about Bitcoin you shouldn't talk (write) like a presumptuous dick.

No reason to get insulting.

Dont thank me if you dont mean it.

Yes I know this has been "discussed" a thousand times already, -snip-

I mean it, you gave good info, but the way you post is irritating.
Keep in mind there are probably something less than 7 billion people out there that know far less than what I know, about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies.
It's good to explain things, it's not good to talk to people like if they were idiots.